STATE CHALLENGES LAZ SUBPOENAS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, JUSTICE MINISTER
THE State has challenged an application by the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) to summon Attorney General Likando Kalaluka and Justice Minister Given Lubinda to testify in their favour in the matter which the association has sued the President, National Assembly as well as the Attorney General himself over the Constitution Amendment Bill No. 10.
The State has filed a motion asking the court to quash the application for irregularity.
LAZ has filed an application summoning Minister of Justice Given Lubinda and Attorney General Attorney General Likando Kalaluka to testify against the state..
LAZ said in a combined writ of subpoena and testificandum filed into court that the two witnesses are expected to give evidence on its behalf.
The Attorney General has however, filed a notice of motion to set aside the subpoenas in the cause for irregularity. The state contends that the subpoenas ad testificandum and duces tecum are irregular as leave of the court was not obtained. “We submit that the petitioner has wrongly caused to be issued the subpoenas under this cause as the petitioner did not obtain leave from the court as required,” reads part of the motion.
Meanwhile, the Attorney General has submitted to the Constitutional Court that the LAZ can only challenge the contents of Constitutional (Amendment) Bill No. 10 of 2019 if the same are enacted into law.
The state has argued that LAZ is not entitled to any of the reliefs being sought in its petition where it’s challenging Government’s attempt to alter the Constitution of Zambia through Bill 10, 2019; and such its petition should be dismissed with costs.
In this matter, LAZ has dragged President Lungu, the Attorney General and the National Assembly to the Constitutional Court for attempting to alter the Constitution of Zambia through Bill 10, 2019.
But in an answer to the petition filed in the Constitutional Court by the Attorney General’s Chambers, on Wednesday, the respondents argued that LAZ could only challenge the contents of the Bill if the same were enacted into law, as the court would then have the power to review the said law.
“However in a case of a Constitutional amendment like in casu, this honorable court would have no such jurisdiction as the emended Constitution would be supreme law.
The respondents will show that LAZ is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought and that the petition ought to be dismissed with costs to the respondents,” Mr Kalaluka stated.
He stated that the Constitutional Court could not be called upon to make pronouncements and declarations on the contents of a Bill, which was proposed law.
Mr Kalaluka said the respondents shall put LAZ to strict proof on its assertion that Article 1, 2, 8, 9, 90, 91, 92 and 79 of the Constitution have been violated by the respondents without reference to provisions of the Bill, which was merely proposed law.